Consumption

In this subsection we examine the effects of devaluation on consumption demand for nontraded goods. We will consider a fairly general specification of household behavior, in which demand for nontraded goods depends on the real exchange rate e = P_t/P_n, where P_n is the domestic-currency price of nontraded goods, on real factor incomes received by households (y) net of real taxes paid by them (t), on real household financial wealth (z), and on the real interest rate r - π, where r is the domestic nominal interest rate and π is the expected rate of inflation. Possible distributional effects on aggregate consumption are captured by a shift parameter, denoted δ. Consumption demand for nontraded goods thus takes the general form

We now examine the effects of devaluation on each of the arguments of c().

Relative Price Effects

Devaluations bring about changes in relative prices that affect the demand for domestically produced goods. Within the “dependent economy” framework adopted in this paper, it is necessary to distinguish between the relative price effect on the demand for traded goods and for nontraded goods.⁴ As mentioned above, the total (domestic and foreign) demand for domestically produced traded goods is perfectly elastic and therefore is not affected by relative price changes. Although the domestic demand for these goods is affected by relative prices—which is an important effect for balance of payments purposes—it is the total demand that is relevant for output and employment in this sector. But changes in relative prices that affect the domestic demand for nontraded goods will affect the total demand for these goods, since both demands are the same by definition. A devaluation, therefore, will have a relative price effect on the demand for domestically produced goods through its effect on the demand for nontraded goods. A real depreciation of the domestic currency (that is, an increase in the relative price of traded to nontraded goods), with real income held constant, will increase the demand for nontraded goods, and vice versa. This implies a positive partial derivative c₁ in equation (3). This substitution effect, present in most models, is excluded in Krugman and Taylor (1978) by the assumption that consumers demand only nontraded goods.

Real Income Effects

Devaluations also produce changes in real income that affect the demand for domestically produced goods. These real income changes can be decomposed into those resulting from changes in relative prices at the initial level of ouptut and those resulting from changes in output at the new relative prices. Because we are discussing effects on the demand for domestic output, we will he interested primarily in the change in real income at the initial level of output, which provides the impact effect. To obtain the endogenous change in output, it would be necessary to solve the complete model, including demand and supply factors simultaneously. The discussion of the impact effect will be sufficient to illustrate the forces at work.

To analyze the income effect, we need some definitions. The price level will be denoted by P, with

where β is the share of traded goods in consumption. Real income is equal to

where y_n is the production of nontraded goods, and y_t is the production of traded goods.

The effect of a real devaluation on real income for a given level of output is ambiguous. Differentiating equation (5) with respect to e, with y_n and y_t kept constant, yields

where α is the share of traded goods in total output:

Equation (6) shows that the impact effect on real income depends on whether traded goods have a higher share in consumption or in income. Clearly, a variety of results are possible. Assume, for example, that there is no expenditure on investment goods, so that consumption and expenditure are the same, and assume also that there is no public sector expenditure, so that c_n = y_n. In this case the net effect on real income depends on whether consumption of traded goods is higher or lower than y_t—that is, on whether there is a trade deficit or a trade surplus. If there is a deficit, β > α. and real income declines with a real devaluation. The reason is that the goods whose relative price has increased—traded goods—have a higher weight in consumption than in income. The incorporation of investment goods and public sector expenditure naturally complicates these relationships.⁵

For models with traded and nontraded goods, besides the ambiguous effect on real income derived here for given levels of output, the demand for nontraded goods may also increase because of a higher level of output of traded goods. The production of traded goods will in general increase as long as the price of its inputs do not rise by the full amount of the devaluation. As examined later, this will depend on whether salaries are indexed, on inflationary expectations, and on other factors.

Effects Through Imported Inputs

The presence of imported inputs is an additional factor that may have a negative effect on the demand for domestically produced goods after a devaluation. The reason is that under certain conditions imported inputs make it more likely that the real income effect of a devaluation, discussed in the previous subsection, will be negative.

The modification that imported inputs introduce in the previous analysis is that they must be subtracted from domestic output to obtain national income. A real devaluation, therefore, not only affects real income through the channels mentioned in the previous section, but it also affects real income by changing the real value of imported inputs.

There are two opposing effects of a real devaluation on the real value of imported inputs. On the one hand, a real devaluation increases the relative price of imported inputs in terms of the basket of consumption, thereby increasing the real value of the initial volume of imported inputs. On the other hand, if the price of labor does not increase by the full amount of the devaluation, the relative price of imported inputs increases, and domestic producers have an incentive to substitute labor for imported inputs, thus reducing the volume of imported imports. Clearly, the net effect of these two opposing forces depends, among other things, on the degree of factor substitutability in production and on the extent to which a devaluation is transmitted to wages.

To illustrate this relationship we will use a very simple example, and we will mention later the modifications required if some of the assumptions are relaxed. Assume that traded goods are produced with a fixed amount of specific capital and with labor. Nontraded goods are produced with an imported input and labor according to a constant elasticity of substitution (CES) production function with elasticity of substitution o”. Using the definition of the price level described in equation (5), real national income is

where m is the volume of imported inputs that are used in the nontraded-goods sector. As in the previous subsection, we calculate the effect of a devaluation on real income for a given level of output. This is done by differentiating equation (8) with respect to e, with y_n and y_t kept constant, which yields

The first term on the right-hand side of equation (9) is the result obtained when there are no imported inputs—see equation (6)—whereas the remaining terms arise only in the presence of imported inputs. The second term is the increase in the real value of the initial volume of imported inputs. The last term represents the substitution away from imported inputs, where (dm/de) is calculated for a given level of nontraded-goods output. We should also remember that, as mentioned in the previous subsection, there is another effect on the demand for nontraded goods, attributable to a higher level of traded-goods output, that is not included in (9). This effect is positive as long as wages do not increase by the same amount as the nominal devaluation.⁶

Assuming cost minimization in the nontraded-goods sector, we obtain

where θ_w is the share of wages in nontraded-goods costs, Ê is (dE/E), Ŵ is (dW/W), and ê is (de/e) since E is the nominal exchange rate, it is also the price of imported inputs, and W is the wage rate.

However, ê is not independent of Ê and Ŵ. Because e = (E/P_n) by definition and because P_n is equal to the unit cost of production, by profit maximization we obtain:

Equation (11) indicates that a real devaluation can only be obtained if wages increase by less than the full amount of the nominal devaluation.

Using equations (9). (10), and (11). the net effect on real income that is added by the presence of imported inputs when there is a real devaluation is

The presence of imported inputs will thus contribute to a reduction in real income when (1 - β) > σ. It is clear that the net effect is ambiguous, and a variety of results are possible. For example, if there is no substitution in production, σ = 0 (as in Krugman and Taylor (1978)), the net effect is necessarily negative.⁷

In comparing our results with those of previous authors, we must keep in mind that we are discussing the effects of a real devaluation, whereas previous papers usually have discussed nominal devaluations. With proper care, comparisons are nonetheless possible. For example, if wages increase by the full amount of the nominal devaluation, Ŵ = Ê, there is no change in relative goods prices and therefore, in our framework, no real devaluation to speak of. In papers that take a nominal devaluation as the starting point, a situation with nominal wages fully indexed to the exchange rate results in no real income effect for a given level of output, which is equivalent to our result. See, for example Hanson (1983). Gylfason and Schmid (1983). Gylfason and Risager (1984), and Nielsen (1986). In general, results by previous authors can be reproduced by, and interpreted as. giving certain specific values to the various parameters in equations (9) and (12). Some of those authors deflate nominal magnitudes by the price of the domestic good in complete specialization models, which is equivalent to assuming that β = 0. Also, in such models the share of the domestic good in production is equal to unity: this is equivalent to assuming that α = 0. Shea (1976). for example, uses a Cobb-Douglas production function, therefore also assuming that σ = 1. with the result that a devaluation has no effect on real income for a given level of output. Finally, it must be remembered that we are discussing the real income effect of imported inputs, and no substitution effect in consumption is included.

Some of the assumptions used above could be relaxed, but this would not affect the main conclusions. For example, it can be assumed that traded goods also use imported inputs. In this case the only difference is that y_t should be interpreted as the value added—instead of output—in the traded-goods sector ⁸ Similarly, the nontraded-goods sector can be assumed to use some specific capital, as in Edwards (1987). This would merely result in a more cumbersome expression that would still depend on the same type of parameters as those mentioned above. Indeed, if it is assumed that specific capital combines with labor according to a Cobb-Douglas production function to produce “value added,” and then value added (instead of labor as in our previous discussion) combines with imported inputs according to a CES production function to produce the nontraded good, equation (12) remains intact. In other words, the condition for a contractionary effect from the presence of imported inputs remains σ < (1 - β). This result can be derived easily from our discussion of the effects of imported inputs on the supply function (Section II, under “Imported Inputs”), where we assume this alternative production structure and include specific capital as a factor of production in the nontraded-goods sector.

In summary, the net effect on real income that is added by the presence of imported inputs is ambiguous. It is more likely to be negative the lower is the elasticity of substitution between imported inputs and primary factors, and the higher is the share of nontraded-goods prices in the price index.

Income Redistribution Effects

Another factor frequently mentioned as a possible cause for a decline in the demand for domestically produced goods after a devaluation is the redistribution of income from sectors with high propensity to spend on this type of good to sectors with a lower propensity. Alexander (1952) recognized the possibility that redistribution of income may affect expenditure, and included it as one of the direct effects of a devaluation on absorption. He discussed redistribution of income in two directions, both of them associated with an increase in the price level: first, from wages to profits because of lags in the adjustment of wages to higher prices; second, from the private to the public sector because of the existing structure of taxation. If profit recipients have a lower marginal propensity to spend than wage earners, or if the public sector has a lower propensity to spend than the private sector, absorption will decline for a given level of real income. Note, however, that whereas Alexander was interested in the effects on the trade balance and therefore examined the behavior of total expenditure, we are interested in the effects on the demand for domestic output and thus are concerned with the behavior of the demand for this particular class of good.

Of the two types of redistribution mentioned above, we will examine in this subsection the shift of income from wages to profits, leaving the shift from the private to the public sector to be discussed later. Although also recognized by other authors, such as Cooper (1971a a. 1971bb), the redistribution from wages to profits has been examined formally by Diaz Alejandro (1963) and Krugman and Taylor (1978). Both of these papers present models in which the only impact effect of a devaluation is to redistribute a given level of real income from wages to profits because of an increase in prices, with wages kept constant. Both show that this may cause a reduction in the demand for domestic output if the marginal propensity to spend on this type of good is lower for profit recipients than for wage earners.⁹ Diaz Alejandro’s discussion is more precise because he specifically distinguishes the marginal propensity to spend from the marginal propensity to consume (Krugman and Taylor assume that the marginal propensity to invest is zero) and also distinguishes expenditure on traded goods from expenditure on nontraded goods (Krugman and Taylor assume that all the final demand is for nontraded goods).

Although theoretically correct under the assumptions made in those papers, this is not the only type of redistribution of income between workers and owners of capital that it is possible to associate with a devaluation. For example, in a model with traded and nontraded goods, flexible wages, and sector-specific capital, a real devaluation would reduce real profits in the nontraded-goods sector, increase real profits in the traded-goods sector, and would have an ambiguous effect on real wages. Real wages would increase in terms of nontraded goods but would decline in terms of traded goods. Sectoral considerations may therefore become important, and it is not clear a priori what would be the effect of this type of redistribution on the demand for the domestically produced good. Cooper (1971a a. 1971bb) mentioned the possibility of redistribution from the factors engaged in purely domestic industries to the factors engaged in export and import-competing industries, and he recognized that, although in some cases this may have reduced demand, under different circumstances this may induce a spending boom. Furthermore, in the longer run when all factors of production are mobile, the redistribution of income may depend on technological considerations. For example, in a Heckscher-Ohlin model, real wages and profits in terms of either of the two goods depend on factor intensities. A real devaluation will increase real payments to factors used intensively by the traded-goods sector and will reduce real payments to the other factor. All these considerations imply that the pattern of redistribution may change through time as the economy adjusts to the new situation after a devaluation. It seems natural to think of the redistribution of income as a dynamic process encompassing the various situations mentioned above. First, nominal wages are fixed for some period after a devaluation, then wages adjust to the new price level and workers move among occupations while capital remains sector specific, and, finally, capital also moves to the sectors with higher returns.

Besides the theoretical issues mentioned above, there still remains the question of how important the effect on the demand for domestic output of redistribution from wages to profits is likely to be. Alexander (1952) emphasized that what is important is the marginal propensity to spend, so that even if profit recipients have a lower marginal propensity to consume than wage earners, higher profits may stimulate investment, and the redistribution of income may therefore result in increased absorption. Diaz Alejandro (1963). however, argued that investment expenditure is even more biased toward traded goods than consumption expenditure, and because investment expenditure is undertaken by profit recipients, the demand for domestically produced goods is likely to decline. Even if this proposition about the relative sizes of the marginal propensities to spend on domestic output of workers and owners of capital is accepted, the next question is how important is the redistribution of income that will lead to a change in the pattern of aggregate expenditure. On this issue the evidence does not provide firm support for the hypothesis of redistribution against labor. Using data from 31 devaluation episodes, Edwards (1987) showed that in 15 cases there was no significant change in income distribution, whereas in 8 cases the share of labor in gross domestic product (GDP) declined significantly, and in 7 other instances it increased significantly.

Effects Through Changes in Real Tax Revenue

To the extent that devaluation affects the real tax burden on the private sector, thus redistributing income from the private to the public sector, changes in real tax revenue represent a separate channel through which a contractionary effect on economic activity may result. This effect may operate through the demand for domestic output or through its supply, and in the former case through private consumption expenditure or through private investment. Up to the present, only the effects of devaluation on the real tax burden faced by consumers has figured prominently in the literature, and in this section we shall focus on this effect.

Krugman and Taylor (1978) pointed out that many governments in developing countries derive a substantial proportion of their revenues from import and export taxes. Thus, a nominal devaluation that succeeds in depreciating the real exchange rate will increase the real tax burden on the private sector by increasing the real value of trade taxes, for given levels of imports and exports. It is straightforward to show that this relationship will continue to hold, after allowing for quantity responses on the part of imports and exports, as long as the price elasticity of demand for imports is not too large.¹⁰ The result depends, however, on the presence of ad valorem rather than specific taxes on foreign trade. To the extent that nominal devaluation results in increases in the domestic price level, the presence of specific taxes would reverse the effect emphasized by Krugman and Taylor, since the real value of nonindexed specific taxes would fall as the result of an increase in the general price level brought about by a nominal devaluation.

The latter is, of course, simply a specific instance of the Olivera-Tanzi effect (see Olivera (1967) and Tanzi (1977)), which surprisingly has played no role in the literature on contractionary devaluation. This effect is present when lags in tax collection or in adjusting the nominal value of specific taxes cause the real value of tax collections to fall during periods of rising prices. To the extent that nominal devaluations are associated with at least temporary bursts of inflation, the Olivera-Tanzi effect should be expected to be operative during the immediate post-devaluation period when prices are rising. Because the real tax burden would fall as a consequence of this effect, devaluation would exert an expansionary short-run effect on aggregate demand through this channel.

A third channel through which devaluation may affect aggregate demand by its effect on the real tax burden borne by households is that of discretionary tax changes caused by the effects of devaluation on government finances. To clarify this point, let us suppose that, other than trade taxes, all remaining taxes are levied on households in lump-sum fashion. To incorporate the two channels discussed above, let us write the government’s real tax receipts, denoted t, as

where τ is a parameter that captures the effects of discretionary taxes, and where the first two terms in the function t() capture the trade-tax and Olivera-Tanzi effects. The government’s budget constraint takes the form

where g_t and g_n denote government spending on traded and nontraded goods, respectively, r^* is the foreign nominal interest rate. F_G is net public external debt, and D_G is the stock of net government liabilities to the central bank.¹¹

The first point to be made from identity (13) is that, in the Krugman-Taylor case, the increase in the real value of trade taxes attendant on a real devaluation cannot be the end of the story. As identity (13) makes clear, this increase in t must be offset somewhere else within the government budget, since identity (13) must hold at all times. The effect of an increase in real trade taxes on aggregate demand will depend on the nature of this offset. If. for example, the offset takes the form of a reduction in discretionary taxes (τ), leaving real tax receipts t unchanged, the contractionary effect on aggregate demand will disappear altogether. Other possible offsets will differ in their consequences for aggregate demand, in ways to be explored below.

A nominal devaluation that results in a real depreciation may potentially affect each of the entries on the right-hand side of identity (13). Among these, several authors have noted the importance of the existence of a stock of foreign-currency-denominated external debt in affecting the possible contractionary effects of a nominal devaluation (see Gylfason and Risager (1984), van Wijnbergen (1986), and Edwards (1986)). In each case, however, the external debt has been treated as if it is owed by the private sector.¹² As is well known, most external debt in developing countries is typically owed by the public sector. Indeed, currency substitution and capital flight have probably made the private sector in many developing countries a net creditor in foreign-currency terms. The sectoral allocation of debt can be ignored, and all debt treated as private debt, only in the case of complete Ricardian equivalence, which is discussed below. For the present, we examine the implications of public external debt in the absence of Ricardian equivalence.

If the public sector is a net external debtor, a real devaluation will increase the real value of interest payments abroad. As identity (13) indicates, the government can finance such increased debt service payments by increased taxation, reduced spending, or increased borrowing from the central bank or from abroad. The effects on aggregate demand will depend on the mode of financing. If the government chooses to increase discretionary taxes, the effects on aggregate demand will be contractionary because private disposable income would fall. This is implicitly the effect captured by van Wijnbergen. Edwards, and Gylfason and Risager in treating all debt as private debt and in deducting interest payments from private disposable income. The effect on private consumption would be similar to that of an increase in discretionary taxes arising from any other cause. As a second alternative, increased real debt service payments could be financed by a reduction in government spending on goods and services. If this takes the form of reduced spending on nontraded goods, the contractionary effects on aggregate demand would exceed those associated with tax financing unless the propensity to spend out of taxes approached unity. In contrast, if spending reductions fall on traded goods, the contractionary effects would be nil, since the small-country assumption ensures that government demand would be replaced by external demand.¹³ Finally, the increased real debt service payments could be financed by borrowing—either from the central bank or from abroad. In this case, with the exchange rate fixed at its new level, contractionary effects would again fail to appear because the counterpart to the increased flow of credit to the government would simply consist of an outflow of foreign reserves in the former case, and of increased government external debt in the latter, with no impact on domestic aggregate demand in either case.

In addition to the effect on real interest payments, devaluation would affect the real value of government expenditures on goods and services. Because the real value of spending on traded goods rises while that on nontraded goods falls, the total effect depends on the composition of government spending between traded and nontraded goods. Should the net effect be an increase in real spending, the same financing options as before would present themselves. This would be the case if government spending were heavily weighted toward traded goods. In the alternative case, a reduction in discretionary taxes may ensue, for example, with corresponding expansionary effects on aggregate demand.

Finally, the effect of a devaluation on discretionary taxes will also depend on the monetary policy regime in effect. This channel is captured by the last term on the right-hand side of identity (13). If the central bank pegs the flow of credit to the government in nominal terms, the rise in prices that attends a nominal devaluation will reduce ${\dot{D}}_G$/P and call for an adjustment in the government budget, possibly through a discretionary tax increase. If the flow ${\dot{D}}_G$ is adjusted to accommodate the price increase, however, no further changes in the budget will emanate from this source. The last option we consider is that in which real valuation gains on the central bank’s stock of foreign exchange reserves are passed along to the government. In this case ${\dot{D}}_G$/P could increase, and the financing options would include an expansionary tax reduction.

The preceding discussion requires several modifications in the presence of full Ricardian equivalence. To explore the nature of these modifications, it is necessary to take another look at the ad hoc consumption function (3) to see how it would need to be amended under Ricardian equivalence.

where a tilde (˜) over a variable denotes an expectation formed at time u. If static expectations are assumed for y and t—that is, $\tilde{y}$(j) = y(u) and $\tilde{t}$(j) = t(u)—the permanent value of income from production net of taxes is equal to their currently observed values. Substituting equation (15) in equation (14) yields

which is in the form of equation (3).

Now we modify equation (16) to impose Ricardian equivalence. Under full Ricardian equivalence, the real interest rates at which the private and public sectors can borrow or lend are identical, and the private sector uses the government’s budget constraint (13) to formulate its estimate of future tax liabilities. To keep within the confines of the Ricardian equivalence literature—which focuses on the choice between tax and bond financing—let us suppose that government deficits are always financed by borrowing abroad. That is, any shocks to taxes, spending, or interest payments are offset by altering the net flow of external financing. Under these assumptions the present value of the households’ future tax liabilities are found, from equation (13), to be

where g = e^1-β + e^-β g_n and ρ = r^* - π. Assuming, as before, that expectations about the flow variables—in this case y and g—are static, and substituting into equations (15) and (14). we have

which is the Ricardian equivalence version of equation (16).

Equation (18) suggests the following modifications of previous results:

• Although a real depreciation may increase the real value of trade taxes, in the manner of Krugman and Taylor, thus reducing private disposable income, real aggregate demand wili not contract. Instead, households will finance their increased real tax payments out of savings, since their higher taxes today will be offset by lower taxes tomorrow, leaving lifetime resources unchanged.

• The same analysis applies to the Olivera-Tanzi effect. Although today’s real tax burden may fall, this will require greater external borrowing, which must be serviced by higher future taxes, so current private spending will remain unchanged

• In the presence of public external debt, a real depreciation will be directly transmitted to lower private demand, even if the increased real cost of external debt service is financed by additional external borrowing, with no increase in taxes levied on the private sector today.

Wealth Effects

Because an increase in real wealth can be expected to increase household consumption, a devaluation can also affect the demand for domestically produced goods through its effects on real wealth. If the level of domestic expenditure depends on real wealth, and private sector asset holdings are not indexed to the domestic price level, a devaluation changes the real value of existing wealth and thus affects the demand for domestic goods.

Nominal wealth is often taken to coincide with the nominal stock of money, thus converting the wealth effect into a real cash balance effect. Alexander (1952) emphasized this channel when analyzing the consequences a devaluation would have for absorption. He noted that a devaluation would increase the price level and thus reduce the real stock of money. This reduction would in turn have two types of effects, both tending to reduce absorption: a direct effect, when individuals reduce their expenditures in order to replenish their real money holdings to the desired level; and an indirect effect, when individuals try to shift their portfolios from other assets into money, thus driving up the domestic interest rate in the absence of perfect capital mobility. We will be concerned in this subsection only with the direct effect, since the other is included in our discussion of the interest rate at the end of the section.

The real cash balance effect has been widely recognized and incorporated in the literature on contractionary devaluation. For example, Guitián (1976), Gylfason and Schmid (1983), Hanson (1983), Islam (1984), Gylfason and Radetzki (1985), Buffie (1986a), and Edwards (1987) take this effect into account by including real cash balances directly as an argument in the expenditure function or indirectly through the use of a hoarding function. In all these cases a devaluation, by increasing the price level in the presence of a given initial nominal stock of money, reduces real cash balances, thereby exerting a contractionary effect on demand.

This unambiguous result must be modified if the private sector holds other types of assets whose nominal value increases with a devaluation. For example, assume that the private sector holds foreign-currency-denominated assets in an amount F. Then real wealth would be equal to

View Expanded

The percentage change in real wealth from a nominal devaluation would be equal to

where λ is the share of domestic money in private sector wealth. Because ê is bounded above by Ê (unless the price of nontraded goods declines with a devaluation, which we do not consider), equation (20) has the following implications. If domestic money is the only asset in the portfolio of the private sector, λ = 1. a devaluation necessarily has a negative effect on real wealth and on demand. This was the case considered above. Alternatively, if the private sector also holds assets denominated in foreign currency, the result is ambiguous. The source of the ambiguity is that, although the real value of the stock of domestic money declines because of the increase in the price level, the real value of the stock of foreign assets increases as long as the domestic price level does not increase by the full amount of the devaluation. The effect on the demand for domestic goods may be positive or negative. It is more likely to be negative the higher is the share of traded goods in the price index β, the lower is the real depreciation ê, and the higher is the share of domestic money in private sector wealth λ. The possibility of the private sector holding foreign assets, although incorporated in several other aspects of analyses of devaluations, is practically ignored in the literature on contractionary devaluation.

This framework is also useful to examine the effects of external debt. The presence of private sector external debt reduces the net foreign asset position of the private sector F, thus increasing the share of domestic money in wealth λ, and therefore increasing the likelihood that a devaluation will have a negative effect on real wealth. If the level of external debt is so high as to result in a negative net foreign asset position of the private sector, λ will be greater than unity, and a devaluation will necessarily have a negative effect on real wealth and, therefore, a negative effect through the wealth channel on the demand for domestic goods. Thus, the presence of private sector external debt introduces another channel for a devaluation to be contractionary.

The contractionary effects of devaluation in the presence of external debt have been examined by Gylfason and Risager (1984), van Wijnbergen (1986). and Edwards (1987). They have incorporated these effects in two different ways: by considering the reduction in real wealth as we discussed above, and by focusing on the real value of interest payments. Edwards modeled the presence of external debt by deducting external interest payments from private sector disposable income. Because a real devaluation increases the real value of interest payments that are fixed in foreign currency, disposable income declines, and the demand for domestic output declines with it. Gylfason and Risager introduced this channel, but they also included external debt as a negative component of wealth, thereby having an additional channel for a negative effect on demand. Van Wijnbergen also included both channels, but his definition of disposable income included capital gains and losses on asset holdings, which allowed for the possibility of a rather curious result. In his model the sign of the effect attributable to foreign debt depends on whether the real interest rate in terms of domestic output is positive or negative. This interest rate would be negative if the rate of increase of domestic output prices is higher than the sum of the external interest rate plus the rate of crawl of the exchange rate. In this case a devaluation, by increasing the real value of debt on which the country is paying a negative interest rate, would increase disposable income and with it the demand for domestic output.

Among the papers mentioned above, Gylfason and Risager (1984) is the only one to take into account the distinction between private and public external debt. In their definition of real wealth they assumed that the private sector considers a certain proportion of total debt to be owed by itself, either directly or through future tax payments. In their treatment of interest payments, however, they assume that payments on the public sector share of external debt are financed by taxes, so real disposable income of the private sector is independent of the division of external debt between the private and the public sector.Edwards (1987) and van Wijnbergen (1986) considered external debt to be owed exclusively by the private sector.

We have seen that the authors mentioned above have derived contractionary effects of a devaluation attributable to the presence of external debt using as channels the effect on real weaith, on real interest payments, or on both variables, and using alternative definitions of disposable income. This raises the issue of which is the most appropriate way of modeling this effect. It is clear from equation (15) that one correct way is to include debt as a negative item in wealth. A real devaluation that increases real debt reduces real wealth, and therefore reduces consumption. Another way would be to interpret debt as a consol. Then, an increase in real debt increases interest payments permanently, which reduces disposable income permanently, and thus reduces consumption. In this case it would be correct to include interest payments as a negative item in disposable income, but it would be incorrect to include simultaneously debt as a negative item in wealth.

Either of the two ways would be sufficient, and they would be equivalent because the present value of all future interest payments would be equal to the present level of debt. Note, however, that the inclusion of interest payments as a negative item in disposable income in a maximizing framework requires that those payments be seen as permanent. The curious result in van Wijnbergen (1986) mentioned above originates in the inclusion of interest payments in disposable income when real interest rates are negative, a situation that can hardly be seen as permanent. Undoubtedly, the use of ad hoc models for analyzing problems in which expectations play such an important role is a drawback. A more fruitful approach would be to analyze this issue in the context of an intertemporal maximizing framework, as used by Obstfeld (1982) and Svensson and Razin (1983) to study the effects of changes in the terms of trade on expenditure, and as used by Dornbusch (1983) to study the optimal path of consumption and external borrowing in a dependent economy. Only within this type of framework, in which it is possible to distinguish between transitory and permanent and between expected and unexpected changes, and which forces the consideration of an intertemporal budget constraint, will it be possible to analyze this issue in a more rigorous and meaningful way.

Investment

As indicated by equation (2). the effects of a devaluation on private demand for nontraded goods fall on consumption demand for nontraded goods as well as on investment demand for nontraded goods from both the traded- and nontraded-goods sectors. For concreteness we shall assume in this section that the capital stock in each sector consists of traded and nontraded goods combined in fixed proportions. A unit of capital in the traded-goods sector consists of ${\gamma }_n^t$ units of nontraded goods and ${\gamma }_t^t$ units of traded goods, whereas in the nontraded-goods sector capital consists of ${\gamma }_n^n$ nontraded goods and ${\gamma }_t^n$ traded goods. Then the prices of a unit of capital in the traded-goods sector (P_kt) and in the nontraded-goods sector (P_kn) are given by

We suppose that output in each sector is produced by using capital, labor, and imported inputs. The marginal product of capital in the two sectors is therefore given by¹⁴

In the short run the capital stock is fixed. By the first-order conditions for instantaneous profit maximization, an increase in the product wage will reduce demand for labor, and this increase in the capital intensity of production will cause the marginal product of capital to fall. A similar effect results from an increase in the real cost of imported inputs. Note that this variable does not enter equation (23). since the price of imported inputs in terms of traded goods is not affected by devaluation.

Because the demand for investment goods is inherently forward-looking, today’s demand for investment in each sector will depend on the anticipated future paths of W, E, P_n, and the nominal interest rate r. Under rational expectations, these paths can only be generated by the full solution of a model. Because we do not present such a solution here, we will examine the issues involved under the assumption that all relative prices are expected to remain at their postdevaluation levels. Under this assumption, the sectoral net investment functions can be expressed as

Net investor demand in each sector depends on the ratio of the marginal product of capital to the real interest rate. Gross investment demand is the sum of net investment and replacement investment, where depletion is assumed to take place at the uniform rate δ in both sectors. Equations (25) and (26) can now be combined with replacement investment to yield the total investment demand for nontraded goods:

The effects of a real devaluation of the investment demand for non-traded goods can now be examined.

Both Branson (1986) and Buffie (1986b) have emphasized that, since a substantial portion of any new investment in developing countries is likely to consist of imported capital goods, a real depreciation will raise the price of capital in terms of home goods, and this increase will tend to discourage new investment, exerting a contractionary effect on aggregate demand. As is evident from equation (27), this analysis is valid only in the case of investment demand that originates in the nontraded-goods sector. The situation is precisely the opposite in the traded-goods sector, where a real depreciation lowers the real supply price of capital measured in terms of output. In this sector, therefore, this effect operates to stimulate investment, so the net effect on investment demand for non-traded goods of changes in the supply price of capital is ambiguous in principle.

A second channel through which devaluation affects the investment demand for nontraded goods operates through real profits. The analysis of this channel has to be model specific to a greater extent than the previous one because it will depend, for example, on the extent to which product markets are assumed to clear—that is, on whether firms operate on their factor demand curves. The exposition above assumes that they do. In this case the return to capital is its marginal product, which depends on the initial stock of capital, on the product wage, and, in the case of the nontraded-goods sector, on the real exchange rate, which determines the price of imported inputs. The effects of changes in product wages on profits, and therefore on investment spending, were emphasized by van Wijnbergen (1986), Branson (1986), and Risager (1984). Both van Wijnbergen and Branson contrasted the case of fixed nominal wages with that in which there is some degree of wage indexation. Risager, in contrast, examined the effect on investment of holding the nominal wage constant over some fixed initial contract length and then restoring the initial real wage.

The basic result of these studies is that a devaluation may raise or lower the product wage on impact depending on the nature and degree of indexation. With rigid nominal wages, the product wage would fall on impact, and investment would increase in the short run, even if the original product wage were expected to be restored in the future (Risager (1984)). With indexation that gives significant weight to imports, however, the product wage could rise, thereby dampening investment. A common result in “dependent economy” models with some nominal wage flexibility, however, is that a nominal devaluation results in a reduction in the product wage in the traded-goods sector and an increase in the product wage in the nontraded-goods sector (see Section II, the first subsection). In this case, investment would be stimulated in the former and discouraged in the latter, with ambiguous effects on total investment demand for nontraded goods.

In the presence of imported inputs, a third channel will be operative. The marginal product of capital in the nontraded-goods sector will be affected by a real devaluation through the higher real costs of such inputs (van Wijnbergen (1986), Branson (1986)). The effect is unambiguously contractionary, since the depressing effect on profits in the nontraded-goods sector is not offset by positive effects on profits in traded-goods production.

As a final point note that, in the case of a real depreciation that lowers the product wage in the traded-goods sector and raises it in the nontraded-goods sector, the three effects analyzed above (that is, the effects on the real cost of capital, the product wage, and the cost of imported inputs) tend, taken together, to increase investment in the traded-goods sector and to decrease it in nontraded goods. If these effects are sufficiently strong, total investment demand for nontraded goods must increase when capital is sector specific. In this case, an increase in investment demand in the traded-goods sector can only be met out of new production. It cannot be offset by negative gross investment in the nontraded-goods sector. Thus, whenever a devaluation has a sufficiently disparate effect on sectoral investment incentives as to increase investment in the traded-goods sector by more than the initial level of gross investment in the nontraded-goods sector, total investment must rise, no matter how adverse the incentives for investment in the nontraded-goods sector.

Devaluation and the Nominal Interest Rate

An increase in the real interest rate can be expected to reduce private consumption of nontraded goods as well as investment spending on non-traded goods by both the traded- and nontraded-goods sectors. Although the expected-inflation component of the real interest rate is treated as exogenous here, in this subsection we examine the effects of devaluation on the nominal interest rate. To analyze those effects, it is useful to distinguish between the current effect of an anticipated (future) devaluation and the contemporaneous effect of a previously unanticipated devaluation. Both shocks will be analyzed in this section. The effect of a devaluation on the nominal interest rate will, of course, depend fundamentally on the characteristics of the economy’s financial structure, and many of the diverse results derived in the literature can be traced to different assumptions about these characteristics. We begin by describing a fairly general framework from which various special cases can be derived.

Suppose that domestic residents can hold financial assets in the form of money, domestic interest-bearing assets, and interest-bearing claims on foreigners (denominated in foreign exchange). Assume further that the domestic interest-bearing assets take the form of loans extended by households to other entities in the private sector (other households and firms). The effects of a devaluation on the nominal interest rate charged on these loans—whether it is a previously unanticipated current devaluation or an anticipated future devaluation—depend critically on the degree of capital mobility (that is. on the extent to which domestic loans are regarded by households as perfect substitutes for foreign assets) and on the severity of portfolio adjustment costs. We will assume that portfolio adjustment is costless and distinguish two cases, depending on whether domestic loans and foreign assets are imperfect or perfect substitutes.

If loans and foreign assets are imperfect substitutes, equilibrium in the loan market may be given the fairly general formulation¹⁵

View Expanded

where H is the real excess demand function for loans; r is the nominal interest rate on loans; r^* + $\overline{\hat{E}}$ is the nominal rate of return on foreign assets, consisting of the nominal interest rate r^* and an expected nominal depreciation $\overline{\hat{E}}$; y is real income; x is a vector of additional variables that have been included in the real loan excess demand function in the contractionary devaluation literature (see below); and (M + EF)/P is real household financial wealth. An increase in r has a negative own-price effect on excess loan demand, whereas increases in r^* + $\overline{\hat{E}}$ increase the excess demand for loans as borrowers switch to domestic sources of finance while lenders seek to place more of their funds in foreign assets. An increase in domestic real income causes lenders to increase their demand for money, which they finance in part by reducing their supply of loans, thereby increasing excess demand in the loan market. Finally, other things being equal, an increase in private financial wealth both reduces borrowers’ need for outside financing and provides lenders with surplus funds, which they can place in both loans and foreign assets after satisfying their own demands for money. This effect reduces excess demand in the loan market.

Now consider the effect of a devaluation on the nominal interest rate r at given initial levels of real income y and of the price of nontraded goods P_N, and with $\overline{\hat{E}}$ = 0. In the case of a previously unanticipated devaluation, the effect on will depend, as can be seen from equation (28). on the composition of household financial wealth. Whether the real excess demand tor loans rises or falls depends on whether real household financial wealth decreases or increases. The devaluation will decrease the real money stock but will increase the real value of foreign assets. If a large share of household financial wealth is devoted to the holding of cash balances, and if traded goods have a large weight in private consumption (so that the price level P registers a strong increase), the former effect will dominate; real private financial wealth will fall, the real excess demand for loans will increase, and the domestic interest rate r will rise. This result will be reversed, however, if foreign assets dominate households” balance sheets or if traded goods carry a small weight in domestic consumption (or both). In van Wijnbergen’s (1986) model, for example, households hold no foreign assets; thus, a nominal devaluation raises the domestic interest rate. In contrast, Buffie (1984a) derived opposite conclusions precisely because he assumed that households hold a substantial portion of their wealth in assets denominated in foreign exchange.

When the partial derivative H₁(), evaluated at r = r^* + $\overline{\hat{E}}$, approaches minus infinity, domestic loans and foreign assets become perfect substitutes in private portfolios. In this case, equation (28) is replaced by

View Expanded

that is, uncovered interest parity holds continuously. Under these conditions, a previously unanticipated current devaluation has no effect on the domestic nominal interest rate. This is the assumption in the models of Turnovsky (1981), Burton (1983), and Montiel (1986).

The effects of an anticipated future devaluation are straightforward. In the case of imperfect substitutes, this is represented by an increase in $\overline{\hat{E}}$ in equation (28), with E held constant. The domestic nominal interest rate will rise. If the own-price effect H₁ exceeds the cross-price effect H₂, the increase will be lower than the anticipated devaluation. In the case of perfect substitutes, however, the domestic rate rises by the full amount of the anticipated devaluation, as indicated in equation (29).

The literature on contractionary devaluation has placed a substantial emphasis on the importance of “working capital” in developing countries as a source of loan demand, following a key tenet of the “new structuralist” school (Taylor (1981)). This introduces additional effects of a previously unanticipated current devaluation that were not included in the preceding analysis. These effects can be captured by defining the variable X in equation (28) as

The variable x now becomes an index of real working capital requirements, which are taken to depend on the wage bill and on purchases of imported inputs (see the last subsection of Section II). An increase in x increases the demand for loans, an effect that explains the positive sign of H₄ in equation (28). Real working capital requirements are assumed to increase when the nominal wage or the domestic-currency price of traded goods (or both) increase, and they are assumed to decrease when the price of nontraded goods rises. The positive sign of x₂ is in keeping with the standard assumption in the literature on contractionary devaluation. Note, however, that this sign places restrictions on the share of imported inputs in variable costs and on the elasticity of substitution between labor and imported inputs.¹⁶

Because a previously unanticipated current devaluation is represented by an increase in E and is also likely to increase W, the real excess demand for loans will rise, putting upward pressure on the domestic interest rate. Thus, taking working capital into account may cause the impact on r to be positive even if foreign assets figure prominently in private sector balance sheets. Working capital considerations, therefore, do enhance the likelihood that devaluation will be contractionary. Note, however, that these considerations become irrelevant if domestic loans and foreign assets are perfect substitutes (in which case equation (30) applies) and do not affect the analysis of an anticipated future devaluation.

Effects on the Nominal Wage

Because labor tends to be the dominant component of cost for most production activities, the effects of devaluation on aggregate supply will be significantly affected by the response of the nominal wage. Various approaches have been taken to nominal wage determination in the literature on contractionary devaluation.

Some authors do not allow the nominal wage to respond to a current devaluation. A common assumption is to treat nominal wages as exogenous (Krugman and Taylor (1978), Gylfason and Schmid (1983), Gylfason and Risager (1984)). Alternatively, nominal wages have been regarded by some authors as predetermined. This approach has taken several forms. Buffie (1986b) and Larrain and Sachs (1986) regarded the current nominal wage as a state variable, with its evolution determined by labor market conditions in a Phillips-type framework and without a role for price expectations. Alternatively. Burton (1983) used a Fischer-type (1977) contracting framework to set the nominal wage in the current period equal to the sum of the (logarithms of) the target real wage and the current price level expected at the inception of the contract. In Burton’s model, the nominal wage can respond to a previously anticipated devaluation, but not to an unanticipated one.

Among models that permit the current nominal wage to be affected by a current devaluation, the most common strategy is to adopt a simple indexation mechanism in which the current wage is proportional to some current price index. Branson (1986), Edwards (1986), and van Wijnbergen (1986) all used this approach, and van Wijnbergen also analyzes the special case of indexation in which the real wage in terms of home goods is assumed to be fixed. Although Turnovsky (1981) did not explicitly analyze the labor market, his model can be interpreted as specifying the nominal wage as a function of the excess demand for labor and of last period’s expectations of current prices, with current prices themselves set as a fixed markup over the nominal wage. In this model, therefore, a previously unanticipated current devaluation can affect the current nominal wage through labor market conditions.

Equilibrium models of the labor market have been presented by Hanson (1983) and Montiel (1986). The former expressed labor demand as a function of the product wage measured in terms of home goods, and labor supply is expressed as a function of the real wage in consumption units. The latter used a Fried man-Phelps formulation in which the labor supply schedule is negotiated one period ahead as a function of the price level expected for that period, and iabor demand depends on the product wages in both the traded- and nontraded-goods sectors.

In this subsection we will examine the effect of a devaluation on the nominal wage in the context of a general model from which the models cited above can be derived as special cases. We assume again a “dependent economy” setup, take capital to be sector specific and fixed in the short run, and allow both sectors to employ imported inputs. With all variables in logarithms, the aggregate demand for labor is

where l₀, d₁, d₂ and d₃ are positive parameters. An increase in the product wage measured in terms of traded goods reduces the demand for labor in the traded-goods sector both by reducing output in that sector and by encouraging the substitution of imported inputs for labor. The magnitude of d₁ depends on the share of labor employed in the traded-goods sector, on the labor intensity of production in that sector, and on the elasticity of substitution between labor and imported inputs in the production of traded goods. The sign and magnitude of d₂ are determined similarly, except, of course, that the nontraded-goods sector is involved. Finally, d₃ captures the effect on the demand for labor in the nontraded-goods sector of an increase in the price of imported inputs. The demand for labor falls because of a decrease in the level of output, but it increases as labor is substituted for imported inputs. The negative sign in equation (31) will hold when substitution elasticities are sufficiently small that the former effect dominates the latter. The magnitude of d₃ depends on this substitution elasticity, on the labor intensity of output in nontraded goods, and on the share of the labor force employed in that sector.

Turning to aggregate supply, we assume the current nominal wage to be given by

View Expanded

where $\overline{W}$, s₁, s₂, and s₃ are positive parameters, all variables are again in logarithms, and a tilde (˜) over a variable now denotes an expectation of its current value formed one period ago. In the contract described by equation (32), the current nominal wage W consists of an exogenous component $\overline{W}$ (taken hereafter to be zero, for simplicity) plus an endogenous component that depends on the level of employment l relative to its “natural,” or full-employment level l₀, on price expectations for the contract period formed when the contract was signed, and on the degree of indexation (s₃) to unanticipated price shocks (P - $\tilde{P}$).

When alternative restrictions are imposed, each of the models cited above can be derived as special cases of equation (32):

• Exogenous nominal wages follow from s₁ = s₂ = s₃ = 0.

• Predetermined nominal wages with Fischer-type contracts are implied by s₂ = 1 and s₁ = s₃ = 0.

• Wage indexation to the current price level in its simplest form can be imposed by setting s₁ = 0 and s₂ = s₃.

• As a special case, fixed real wages follow from s₁ = 0 and s₂ = s₃ = 1.

• The simple Phillips curve, without expectations, is derived with s₂ = s₃ = 0. If l is dated one period ago, the nominal wage becomes predetermined. If, as in equation (32), the current value l matters, then the nominal wage is endogenous.

• A neoclassical labor market model can be produced by setting S₂ = s₃ = 1.

• Finally, the Friedmun-Phelps type of Phillips curve formulation emerges from s₂ = 1 and s₃ = 0.

In this subsection, we will only impose the restrictions that s₂ = 1 and s₂ < 1, so that perfectly anticipated inflation has no effect on workers’ real wage demands, and the degree of indexation to current prices is only partial. Substituting equation (31) in equations (32) and simplifying allows one to write the equilibrium nominal wage implied by this more general model as

This formulation immediately points to several important observations. First, in assessing the effects on the nominal wage of an exchange rate depreciation, the extent to which a nominal depreciation results in a real depreciation is crucial. The equilibrium nominal wage after a devaluation is determined simultaneously with the equilibrium real exchange rate as shown in equation (33). The second observation is that, in the absence of perfect indexation (that is. as long as s₃ < 1), it is important to distinguish, in assessing the effects of devaluation on the nominal wage, whether a current devaluation was previously anticipated or not. If. as seems likely, the effect on the real exchange rate of an anticipated devaluation is smaller than that of an unanticipated devaluation, the effect of an anticipated devaluation on the nominal wage will exceed that of an unanticipated one.¹⁷

A third important observation, however, is that in neither case must the nominal wage necessarily increase. This highlights the importance of an integrated treatment of the labor market in assessing the likelihood that devaluation can be contractionary. To clarify the point, we adopt the working assumption that the price of nontraded goods is constant on impact. This simplifies equation (33):

Note that if d₃ > d₁, the effects of both an anticipated and an unanticipated devaluation could be negative. To see why this possibility can arise, notice from equation (31) that if d₃ > d₁, an increase in E will lower the demand for labor, given W and P_n. The reason is that an increase in demand in the traded-goods sector is offset by reduced demand in the nontraded-goods sector. The latter in turn arises from the effect of an increase in the price of imported inputs, which reduces the level of output and therefore the demand for labor in that sector. This effect will be dominant if the share of labor in the nontraded-goods sector is large, if that sector is relatively intensive in its use of imported inputs, and if the elasticity of substitution of labor for imported inputs in that sector is small. Note that, whether d₃ exceeds d₁ or not, the presence of imported inputs in the nontraded-goods sector tends to reduce the increase in the nominal wage that would tend to accompany a devaluation. This effect acts as an offset to the contractionary effect of a devaluation on the supply of nontraded goods that operates through the imported input channel (see the next subsection).

As a final observation, notice from equation (33) that if d₁ > d₃, then as long as a nominal depreciation (whether anticipated or unanticipated) results in a less than proportional real depreciation (0 < de/dE < 1), the increase in the nominal wage will be no greater than the increase in the price of traded goods and no less than the increase in the price of nontraded goods. That is. the product wage will fail in the traded-goods sector and rise in the nontraded-goods sector.¹⁸

Imported Inputs

In the event of a devaluation, the price of imported inputs increases by the same percentage as the exchange rate, driving up the costs of production of domestically produced goods. The magnitude of this increase in costs depends on technological factors and on the extent to which the price of other factors of production respond to the devaluation. To illustrate these relationships, we will use a specific example.

Assume an economy that produces and consumes traded and non-traded goods. Nontraded goods are produced with imported inputs and “value added” according to a CES production function with elasticity of substitution σ. Value added, in turn, is produced with a fixed amount of specific capital and with labor according to a Cobb-Douglas production function. The share of labor in value added is denoted by γ. Nominal wages are assumed to be determined exogenously and to increase by a given amount as a result of the devaluation. The return on capital, in contrast, is endogenous and varies so as to clear the market for that factor.

In analyzing the effect of a devaluation on the supply of nontraded goods, we investigate the increase in costs, or supply price, for a given level of output. This is the upward shift in the supply curve of those goods. The percentage increase in the supply price is:

where Ê is the percentage of the nominal devaluation, Ŵ is the exogenous increase in nominal wages, and $\hat{r}$ is the endogenous increase in the return of capital. Because labor and capital are combined according to a Cobb-Douglas production function,

and, since $\hat{K}$ = 0,

From cost minimization for a given level of production, we obtain

therefore,

Equation (39) is useful for examining the effect of the devaluation and the adjustment of salaries on the return to capital. If salaries increase by the full amount of the devaluation, Ŵ = Ê, r also increases by the same amount. The reason is simple. At the initial r there is an incentive to substitute value added for imported inputs, and within value added to substitute capital for labor. The amount of capital is constant, however, and thus r increases. The increase in r continues until the initial (W/r) ratio is restored, so that the initial desired ratio (K/L) is also restored. At the end, $\hat{r}$ = Ŵ = Ê, and the same combination of inputs is used to produce the given level of output. An $\hat{r}$ different from Ŵ would not be an equilibrium one. For example, assume that $\hat{r}$ < Ŵ. Then the desired combination (K/L) would be higher, which together with a fixed K implies a lower L, which in turn implies lower value added. For a given level of output, this implies a higher level of imported inputs. But this change in the use of factors is inconsistent with the change in factor prices. Since r increased by less than W, the price of value added increased by less than the price of imported inputs, so we should expect a decline instead of an increase in the intensity of the use of imported inputs.

If wages do not increase by the full amount of the devaluation, equation (39) indicates that the return on capital increases by more than Ŵ. The reason is that if r increases only by Ŵ, producers will want to use the same (K/L) ratio. Because the level of K is fixed, this implies a constant L. But because the price of value added would decline relative to the price of imported inputs, there would be an excess demand for capital and labor. These excess demands are satisfied by an increase in the use of labor and a further increase in the return to capital.

Using equation (39) to replace $\hat{r}$ in equation (35), and remembering that γθ_k = (1 - γ)θ_w because K and L are combined according to a Cobb-Douglas function to produce value added, we obtain

Therefore, if wages increase by the full amount of the devaluation, the supply curve shifts upward by the same percentage as the exchange rate. If wages do not increase by the full amount of the devaluation, the supply curve shifts upward by less than the exchange rate, but by more than the increase in wages, since in this case the return to capital increases more than wages, as discussed before. In this case it is also clear from equation (40) that the increase in the supply price will be larger the larger is the share of imported inputs in total costs, and. for a given share of imported inputs, the larger is the share of capital in value added. The increase in the supply price will also be larger the smaller is the elasticity of substitution between imported inputs and value added.

Equation (40) assumes that value added is produced by capital and labor according to a Cobb-Douglas production function. Therefore, it is assumed that the elasticity of substitution between labor and capital is equal to unity. If instead a CES function were assumed for the production of value added, when Ŵ < Ê the increase in the supply price would be larger the lower the elasticity of substitution between labor and capital. The reason is that the lower that elasticity, the higher must be the increase in the return to capital that is needed to induce producers to increase the employment of labor necessary to compensate for a lower use of imported inputs.

The use of imported inputs in the production of traded goods does not offer new insights because the price of this type of input moves together with the price of output. Even if we assume the same structure of production as the one assumed above for nontraded goods, the level of output will depend on the ratio W/E. If wages increase by less than the full amount of the devaluation, output of traded goods increases (if working capital considerations are ignored), and vice versa.

Effects Through Costs of Working Capital

Several authors of the “new structuralist” school—notably Taylor (1981) and van Wijnbergen (1983)—have emphasized that a nominal devaluation could exert contractionary effects on the supply of domestic output by increasing the cost of working capital; that is, by financing costs for labor and imported inputs. To examine how this effect could operate, consider first the nontraded-goods sector. The need to finance working capital arises from an asynchronization between payments and receipts—much the same as in the motivation for the household’s demand for money. Suppose that, in the nontraded-goods sector, to finance a real wage bill WL_n/P_n and a real imported input bill eI_n the firm is led to hold real stocks of loans outstanding in the amount of h^L(r, WL_n/P_n) for real wages and h^l(r, eI_n) for imported inputs.¹⁹ The firm’s profits are given by

and the first-order conditions for profit maximization are

These equations can be solved for labor and imported input demand functions:

Substituting these in the short-run production function for nontraded goods yields the short-run supply function for nontraded goods: